I haven't fully made up on my mind on this topic, so I want to ask you all:
How do you feel about the individual who does not support factory farming but hunts his own food or raises his own animals to kill them for meat? Although I see the latter as pretty much unecessary, I wonder about hunting. I have been told that if humankind did not hunt, animal populations such as deer would over load the earth. I personally feel against taking the life of another being in order to feed myself, particularly when it is not needed for survival, but what of the ecological balance that hunting supposedly keeps? Does anyone have any thoughts on these items?!
love and light. :)
lindsay

Yes, I do. (have thoughts on the subject, that is.)
Hunting is unnecessary and hurtful to the population it is involved with. (Human hunting, that is.) As for whoever told you that Deer population are better off from Human hunting, just let me alone with him in a dark room and we will all be happier. Americans Hunters have been hunting Deer populations for centuries, and yet they persist in telling us that there is a problem with over population. Deer Hunting DOES NOT WORK. It doesn’t work for the following reasons:
1) Hunters goal is to Murder bucks, (male Deer) which levels a Buck to Doe ratio of sometimes 1 to 10.
2) Even when they try (ha) to balance out the population, it end up leveling the least amount of Deer when food is most plentiful. so what happens? population boom.
3) Hunting ruins the Deer gene pool. destroying the whole spices.

That’s all a little bit off topic, but what the hell.
In my view Raising and killing your own animals is the best of all 3. even then, its not that great.
That’s why we’re all Veggies, right?

While i agree with That alpaca guy's 3 points i dont agree with his conclusion that raising your own animals is the best option. Simply because it helps create the notion that animals are here FOR humans and not here WITH humans. I would say an altered form of hunting would be preferable, one that includes year round hunting and classes and stiff penalties to ensure that hunters follow specific guidelines on what they can hunt.

Americans Hunters have been hunting Deer populations for centuries,...
...

3) Hunting ruins the Deer gene pool. destroying the whole spices.

I guess it must sloooowly destroy the whole 'spices'.

I think the whole thing is wrong, but of the three options, raising them your self is the best. so I agree with Majake on that one, but not the hunting one.
And Red, I didn’t think I'd have to say this but, yes it does take thousands of years to alter a spices by (well, in case I will call it:) natural means.But it is still happening, and is irreversible at that.

Yeah like nature isn't good at keeping things at balance and stable. Like it needs "humankind to hunt" so animal populations are controlled. This is typical Christian thinking and we are already paying a high price for it. We rule the world and nature is our dominion - what a crap!

In fact, nature is very good at keeping balance, and it does so, well, *naturally*. You know what the problem is? Us. The problem with deers can only arise if we exterminate their natural enemies (wolves, bears, ...). It seems to me that by wanting to "engineer" nature, we only become the natural enemies of all other existing species, while having none of our own.

Which is why we should really worry about our own population numbers. We must see that **we** don't overpopulate the planet and take away too much space from nature.

It is a natural fact that the higher you move on the foodchain, the smaller the population numbers get. I.e., we have to choose between few meat-eating humans, or a lot of plant-eating humans. There is NO way this planet can handle 10 billion meat eaters.

Which is why I don't agree that livestock raising is "best". All meat eating is bad, when 10 billion people do it.
Looking for the "best bad" solution is a purely theoretical excercise and can provide no practical solution.

As of actual hunting, well I approve of it but only if the hunter is naked, has no guns, traps, knifes and dogs and eats his prey raw. You get my point.

OK, I agree with a lot of oatmeal said.
And to clear something up, I do NOT think raising animals and killing them for meat is right. It is just better then hunting and factory farming. in a perfect world no human should kill for food, but we are, and most likely will never be, in a 'perfect world.

oh, and on a side note: YOU CAN NOT USE THE TERM 'DEERS' UNLESS TALKING ABOUT ALL SPICES OF DEER!!!!!!!
(sorry, it just a thing with me.)

I new there would be trouble when I saw the H-word......

Serious: I can't see a point in hunting.

I'm strongly against it.

(As you can tell) I'm with 1vegan, all the way.

i don't think that a buck to doe ratio of 1:10 would be harmful- looking at captive breeding, that ratio is actually an amazing one for most species and probably a good one for wild populations as well.

In my opinion, hunters are disgusting. Stalk, shoot, kill, take poloroid, brag to buddies, eat carcass. Yep, pretty much disgusting. I wouldn't want to hang out with any of them.

Hunting is wrong. Killing is wrong. I don't subscribe to any excuse that anyone could give me that would even try to justify it.

That's my 2 cents... :)

Hunting is only beneficial when a hunter accidently shoots another hunter (and other such fatal mishaps occur).

My other half does not eat any other animal apart from fish.
He catches the fish that he eats himself.

Although I don't agree with his actions, I feel that IMHO it is less cruel then eating an animal that has been subjected to factory farming.

I would much rather all the omnis out there (if they are going to continue to be omnis) go out and catch their own fish to eat, one line, one fish ... then eat an animal that has lived out its life in a factory farm.

This is not restricted to fish only by the way. I would prefer anyone, if they insist on eating animals, go out and catch them your bloody self, take them from the 'wild', yourself.

It just seems less cruel this way.

My thoughts exactly. As long as there are factory farms I'm not going to tell anyone they shouldn't hunt.

Originally posted by That alpaca guy

And Red, I didn’t think I'd have to say this but, yes it does take thousands of years to alter a spices by (well, in case I will call it:) natural means.But it is still happening, and is irreversible at that.

Prove it.

Imagine 10 billion hunters with rifles in the forest.

Speaking of which, here's what happened to me a few weeks ago. I went to Amazon, and guess which book was my top recommendation? This one:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895261642/qid=1050160667/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-6517056-9473616?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Though this was pretty much the only time they recommendation engine was wrong about me.

Originally posted by That alpaca guy

1) Hunters goal is to Murder bucks, (male Deer) which levels a Buck to Doe ratio of sometimes 1 to 10.
2) Even when they try (ha) to balance out the population, it end up leveling the least amount of Deer when food is most plentiful. so what happens? population boom.
3) Hunting ruins the Deer gene pool. destroying the whole spices.



1.) Not always the case. Doe permits are sold at great numbers in many states. I know landowners in a couple fo states that allow hunting on their property, but only if the hunters use doe permits. Finally, many hunters do use the kill for food, and are much less picky about buck or doe.

2.) Not always the case. Deer populations have not boomed in every state. Population is not managed the same in every state.

3.) Must prove this to be the case. You stated it should take "thousands" of years, so I would like to know your evidence.

I don't hunt, but I have no problem with hunting. I see the resistance to hunting as a by-product of the hatred of firearms.

i think what we all forget is not everyone is veget/vegan and there is NO WAY anyone is ever going to make everyone veg.

So we have to have a second best. Battery hens or home reared? well home reared obviously is less cruel. not that i would ever do it myself.

If every omni had to go out and hunt for their dinner (no guns) i think a lot less animals would be killed and a lotta lazy people would go veget.

Also with hunting/fishing the hunter or fisherman eats the whole animal and there is less waste.

I dont agree with hunting or fishing for recreational activites but if you are going to eat the catch and there is no way your gonna stop eating meat its is better than intensive farming

more of my "ideal world" talk

Why do veg*ns insist that humans should not use guns, bows, etc. when hunting? We are a species that adapts to our environment using tools. Weapons are tools used for hunting, just as hoes, plows, and other implements are used to raise fruits, grains and vegetables.

If you insist hunters cannot use guns, then it is not logical to lallow farmers to use their tools.

Tame,

I look to curb the testosteron fiesta that is going on amongst hunters in my experience. "I kill my own meat" sounds so manly, natural and back to the roots. Yea - he's doing a man's job, going out and defeating the beast in that great and eternal existential struggle - the battle which defines man.

But personally I don't know how pulling the trigger on your piece of specialized high-tech equipment from safe distance is any of these things. I don't find anything "earthy" about modern hunting.

Just as every farmer should try to grow some veggies without many tools, every hunter should try to hunt without weapons (or OK, he can build his own bow - without tools!). We all should get an idea for what it is that we are *really* doing from time to time and see if it actually makes us feel good. This is very essential I think.

And I guarantee that while the first trial will bring gratification (and some good tasting veggies), the latter will be quite on the contrary.


I don't quite agree that we adapt to our environment by using tools. Unfortunately it seems to me that lately we are using all our tools and ingenuity and try to make nature to adapt to us, without even knowing what we want, i.e. what is best for us.

And actually I agree with you that farmers shouldn't use their tools - at least not THOSE tools. Current farming practices are unsustainable and it would be a good idea to rethink all our farming practices and tools.

But these are rather philosophical issues, pardon.

From the practical standpoint I agree with SimpleSimon that if everyone would have to hunt for the meat, most would go veggy out of pure lazyness without even trying it.

At the same time I also sympathize with Mr. Alpaca and MsRuthieB who clearly represent the ethical argument in this debate.

Originally posted by Tame
Why do veg*ns insist that humans should not use guns, bows, etc. when hunting? We are a species that adapts to our environment using tools. Weapons are tools used for hunting, just as hoes, plows, and other implements are used to raise fruits, grains and vegetables.

If you insist hunters cannot use guns, then it is not logical to lallow farmers to use their tools.

while that may appear to be the next logical next step, it is more a logical jump. Farmers tools don't put other animals at a disadvantage for survival, while guns allow hunters to have advantages over prey. Namely distance, the greater your distance to the target the less chance the target will be able to use its own defenses against the predator, thus not making the "sport" sporting, more like a slaughter.

tools are natural to an extent but i just didnt like the idea of millions of starving omnis with huge guns blasting everything that moves,

seems a tad dangerous to me ;)

Anytime you indiscrimanately kill or allow animals to survive you interfer with the natural order of the survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest ensures traits that allow animals to adapt, survive and remain strong and healthy are kept in the gene pool. When you interfer with this order the gene pool gets saturated with traits that do not help ensure survival of the species, the species then becomes dependent on an outside force for survival, namely those that created this problem, humans.

Originally posted by Tame
1.) Not always the case. Doe permits are sold at great numbers in many states. I know landowners in a couple fo states that allow hunting on their property, but only if the hunters use doe permits. Finally, many hunters do use the kill for food, and are much less picky about buck or doe.

while it is not ALWAYS the case, the majority of the time it is the case, which is why so many states have special programs for doe hunting. Your example gives a good illustration of this, your landowners know that the doe:buck ratio is out of wack and the only way to get it more inline is to stop hunting of bucks and increase hunting of does. Im sure on their lands, majority of the hunters are there for food. And your thoughts that MANY(more than 3) hunters hunt for food is correct, they do hunt for food, but if that was the only reason in MAJORITY of cases there would not be a problem of doe:buck ratios being 10:1 instead of the natural 1-2:1. It implies that even though bucks are so rare they are still the main harvest target.

Originally posted by Tame
2.) Not always the case. Deer populations have not boomed in every state. Population is not managed the same in every state.

hunting season is in the fall during the rut, at this time a good amount of animals are killed. This allows for more food in the spring come birthing time, this allows more animals to survive and thus creates a population boom which needs to be leveled during the next hunting season.

Originally posted by Tame
3.) Must prove this to be the case. You stated it should take "thousands" of years, so I would like to know your evidence.

see my post above, while it doesnt PROVE that, it notes how this can happen.

Originally posted by Tame
I don't hunt, but I have no problem with hunting. I see the resistance to hunting as a by-product of the hatred of firearms.

I think this can be true to some extent, but i think it can also be a by-product of a belief that humans shouldn't kill animals regardless of what they kill them with and they just want to make it as hard as possible for hunters to kill.

oatmeal:
From the practical standpoint I agree with SimpleSimon that if everyone would have to hunt for the meat, most would go veggy out of pure lazyness without even trying it.

Except for the fact you have the entire history of the human species arguing against you. Even today, in both the most harshest and most plentiful environments, you find people with rudimentary weapons choosing to supplement their diet with animal protein. This is a bit like saying if we didn't have internal combustion engines, people would be too lazy to leave their houses.

majake:
Farmers tools don't put other animals at a disadvantage for survival, while guns allow hunters to have advantages over prey.

Only if you want to contend that completely destroying the habitat of an animal, and turn it into a farm, doesn't put at least some animals at a disadvantage.

majake:
Anytime you indiscrimanately kill or allow animals to survive you interfer with the natural order of the survival of the fittest.

Here again, you're changing the habitat to something that favors the survival of deer (farming).

majake:
I think this can be true to some extent, but i think it can also be a by-product of a belief that humans shouldn't kill animals regardless of what they kill them with and they just want to make it as hard as possible for hunters to kill.

It's also something to note that people, professing to want to minimize suffering, will argue that the only noble way to hunt is to do it in a way that increases the amount of suffering. Arguing that using weapons and tools that result in a quick, sure kill is unethical? Right. That makes alot of sense.